Useful Searches

Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

For a lot of people, such as myself, they view it as the very content of the gospel itself. What is a Christian, in your opinion, other than the basic meaning and etymology of the term?

Click to expand...

No argument that the doctrines of Grace Paul taught is the content of the Gospel.

I believe those effectually called understand the concepts but perhaps not the details. Meaning the Hebrew Christians had the advantage of knowing the doctrine given they were entrusted with the oracles of God. The Gentiles had to learn the doctrines.

Perhaps we are discussing very different aspects. It is without question the Christians Paul addressed in epistles knew Jesus was their redeemer and He was the substitute. Did they know Isaiah 53 spoke of this or Leviticus 16? Probably not the Gentiles.

No argument that the doctrines of Grace Paul taught is the content of the Gospel.

I believe those effectually called understand the concepts but perhaps not the details. Meaning the Hebrew Christians had the advantage of knowing the doctrine given they were entrusted with the oracles of God. The Gentiles had to learn the doctrines.

Perhaps we are discussing very different aspects. It is without question the Christians Paul addressed in epistles knew Jesus was their redeemer and He was the substitute. Did they know Isaiah 53 spoke of this or Leviticus 16? Probably not the Gentiles.

Click to expand...

Well, wouldn't the idea of "propitiation" and "appeasement" have been concepts understood in paganism? I don't think Jews were the only ones who understood these terms.

Well, wouldn't the idea of "propitiation" and "appeasement" have been concepts understood in paganism? I don't think Jews were the only ones who understood these terms.

Click to expand...

That’s a good point. Yet Paul took a different approach with pagans as we see in Acts 17. He had to explain the One True God first to separate their understanding of pagan gods. When he preached to Jews it was in the synagogues and he taught directly from the Scriptures.

That’s a good point. Yet Paul took a different approach with pagans as we see in Acts 17. He had to explain the One True God first to separate their understanding of pagan gods. When he preached to Jews it was in the synagogues and he taught directly from the Scriptures.

That would be mostly knowing your audience.

Click to expand...

That's true, you have to know your audience. I agree, Paul had to correct some of their wrong thinking. However, isn't the gospel still what would have saved them afterward? I don't see here that they were saved, because Paul had not been able to explain the rest of the story.

That's true, you have to know your audience. I agree, Paul had to correct some of their wrong thinking. However, isn't the gospel still what would have saved them afterward? I don't see here that they were saved, because Paul had not been able to explain the rest of the story.

Click to expand...

In answer to your OP, I am of the conviction that as a minimum a new creation in Christ Jesus would know the facts of Romans chapter 5.

Here are the other “street” meanings of the rating system: (note humor used)

Like: yeah I agree with most of what you wrote but if I hit “agree” it means I agree with all of your statement. So “like” is used to agree in principle but don’t want to be held accountable for agreeing with all of your post...people may think I’m crazy.

Agree: yeah you got it right but I’m too lazy to respond to your post or give you support.

Winner!: yep that’s 100% right. Now that you said it, I don’t have to so thanks for stealing my thunder and I can move on to another thread.

Useful: I don’t know what you are really saying here but you make sense in other posts so want you to know I read your post but really don’t know how to react to it.

Informative: I really learned something, want you to know I read it and the link, but don’t want anyone to know I really agree with you.

Edit Forgot this:

Friendly: I agree with your personal rebuke of my uncharitable comments. Too embarrassed to actually man up and post an apology.

One of my good high-school friends is Muslim, and the subject of "blood-sacrifices" was brought up. She said that such an idea is pagan. But, it got me thinking...

How is it that the idea of sacrifice and divine appeasement exist in so many pagan religions, unless it has something to do with Romans 1:18-23? If God's wrath is revealed from heaven against all sin, then not only is the idea that there is a God embedded in the conscience of man, but our conscience itself bears witnesses that we are sinners...until we try our best to quiet it. Is it possible that in many ancient cultures, unable to quiet the conscience of this natural awareness, men went to great lengths to address this problem they couldn't shake and resorted to their own idea of appeasing it?

Second, we read in Holy Writ that animal sacrifices (mainly whole burnt offerings) were done prior to Noah in the account of the fall and the event with Cain and Abel. They didn't eat sacrifices, since meat consumption didn't exist until after the flood.

I concluded, in my argument, that pagans have a concept of atonement from the beginning, because it existed prior to paganism, and that paganism still proves the idea that we need it. So really, pagans confirm the truth about the need for atonement from God's wrath rather than disproving it. They are evidence, from every quarter of the world, that it is something embedded in the conscience. Sure, their practices were wrong, deluded, false, distorted, etc, but the concept still existed. Even tribal groups/societies in the Americas, far from Israel, believed in human sacrifices and the ordination/necessity of priests in their religion. Where did this concept of a priest and sacrifice come from, unless it is taken from the original?

It seemed like the argument ended there

What are your guys' thoughts on this?

Obviously, the gospel spread during a time when such a concept was widely believed, by God's providence.

Is the belief in forensic/legal justification and of Christ's penal/vicarious atonement necessary? Please explain why if you want.

Click to expand...

Those are two different questions. All western Christians tend to have a forensic view of salvation. However, that is not the only way that salvation is understood, even in my own religious tradition (Lutheran).

Luther and Lutherans taught multiple themes about just what Christ's work on the Cross accomplished. It would be erroneous to narrow it down to just one, much less a penal theory better known and taught by Reformed churches.

All western Christians tend to have a forensic view of salvation. However, that is not the only way that salvation is understood, even in my own religious tradition (Lutheran).

Luther and Lutherans taught multiple themes about just what Christ's work on the Cross accomplished. It would be erroneous to narrow it down to just one, much less a penal theory better known and taught by Reformed churches.

Here are the other “street” meanings of the rating system: (note humor used)

Like: yeah I agree with most of what you wrote but if I hit “agree” it means I agree with all of your statement. So “like” is used to agree in principle but don’t want to be held accountable for agreeing with all of your post...people may think I’m crazy.

Agree: yeah you got it right but I’m too lazy to respond to your post or give you support.

Winner!: yep that’s 100% right. Now that you said it, I don’t have to so thanks for stealing my thunder and I can move on to another thread.

Useful: I don’t know what you are really saying here but you make sense in other posts so want you to know I read your post but really don’t know how to react to it.

Informative: I really learned something, want you to know I read it and the link, but don’t want anyone to know I really agree with you.

Edit Forgot this:

Friendly: I agree with your personal rebuke of my uncharitable comments. Too embarrassed to actually man up and post an apology.

One of my good high-school friends is Muslim, and the subject of "blood-sacrifices" was brought up. She said that such an idea is pagan. But, it got me thinking...

How is it that the idea of sacrifice and divine appeasement exist in so many pagan religions, unless it has something to do with Romans 1:18-23? If God's wrath is revealed from heaven against all sin, then not only is the idea that there is a God embedded in the conscience of man, but our conscience itself bears witnesses that we are sinners...until we try our best to quiet it. Is it possible that in many ancient cultures, unable to quiet the conscience of this natural awareness, men went to great lengths to address this problem they couldn't shake and resorted to their own idea of appeasing it?

Second, we read in Holy Writ that animal sacrifices (mainly whole burnt offerings) were done prior to Noah in the account of the fall and the event with Cain and Abel. They didn't eat sacrifices, since meat consumption didn't exist until after the flood.

I concluded, in my argument, that pagans have a concept of atonement from the beginning, because it existed prior to paganism, and that paganism still proves the idea that we need it. So really, pagans confirm the truth about the need for atonement from God's wrath rather than disproving it. They are evidence, from every quarter of the world, that it is something embedded in the conscience. Sure, their practices were wrong, deluded, false, distorted, etc, but the concept still existed. Even tribal groups/societies in the Americas, far from Israel, believed in human sacrifices and the ordination/necessity of priests in their religion. Where did this concept of a priest and sacrifice come from, unless it is taken from the original?

It seemed like the argument ended there

What are your guys' thoughts on this?

Obviously, the gospel spread during a time when such a concept was widely believed, by God's providence.

Click to expand...

I tend to agree with this. The idea of animal sacrifice to blot out / make up for the sins of the people, whether the animal was a goat, sheep, deer, llama, cow, or something else, is extremely common. All over. Very common. As is the concept of a father deity who is somehow connected to the sky, and brings rain. It's blurry in places, but also common.

Is the belief in forensic/legal justification and of Christ's penal/vicarious atonement necessary? Please explain why if you want.

Edit: I am talking about both, not just one or the other.

Click to expand...

I like the OP but I'm afraid you'll have to define "necessary". Necessary in what sense? Necessary to be saved? Necessary to be biblically accurate? Logically necessary? Necessary to have a happy life?